R v Lancaster
[2018] ACTSC 285
•16 October 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Lancaster |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 285 |
Hearing Date: | 17 August 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 16 October 2018 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [38] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – obtaining property by deception |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 326 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 10 and 19 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Crystal-Lee Lancaster (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms S Janackovic (Crown) Mr S McLaughlin (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 142 of 2018 |
ELKAIM J:
On 25 May 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to 10 offences of obtaining property by deception.
Each offence is contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years’ and/or a fine of $150,000.
Ten men were duped by the offender. A number of them made initial contact with her through a dating website called Plenty of Fish. They were effectively hooked, used and then discarded.
The victims paid money to the offender because they thought they were performing deeds of charity to assist a person unwell and down on her luck. In reality the offender was simply deceptive. The following is a brief description of the facts behind each charge.
Charge 2018/2629 relates to Mr JL. He met the offender through the dating website. She drew him into her web by lying about her address, her occupation, that she had a son from a former Australian cricket captain, that she suffered from diabetes and had a history of liver cancer. Part of the deception of Mr JL, and others, was to use pictures of a different woman as a lure.
She requested loans from Mr JL to pay for cancer treatment, school fees and insulin. He loaned her, over 24 deposits, a total of $61,490. She repaid him $3,750.
Charge 2018/3458 relates to Mr PH. Initially through Facebook, and later through telephone conversations and text messages, the offender painted a picture of herself as being a physiotherapist, having a three-year-old son born to a former Australian cricket captain and that she was diabetic. Mr PH was a serving soldier who spent time in Afghanistan.
Before leaving Australia to serve his country the offender told him that she had been diagnosed with cancer. Both before and whilst Mr PH was deployed the defendant asked for money to help with medical bills.
To add to the subterfuge the offender created a false identity which she used to contact Mr PH through Facebook and a mobile phone. Under the false identity, the offender sought financial assistance. Part of the subterfuge included placing misleading photographs of herself on Facebook. Between January 2011 and August 2017 Mr PH made 203 deposits into the defendant’s bank account. The total amount of money he paid was $134,445.92. He believed all the money that he paid was in the nature of a loan to help the offender meet medical expenses. When Mr PH asked for the money to be returned he received no response.
10. Charge 2018/3459 relates to Mr DC. He met the offender on the dating website in 2015. The description the offender placed on the website was incorrect. Through various forms of messaging the offender told Mr DC that she was a sports doctor working for notable sporting teams, that she had two sons and that she was diabetic, and coeliac and lactose intolerant.
11. In January 2016, the offender told Mr DC that her sister had stolen money from her and she needed money to purchase medication. Requests for money continued and over the following year Mr DC, who thought he was making loans to the offender, transferred $31,466 into her account.
12. Charge 2018/3460 concerns Mr DJ. In November 2017, Mr DJ also met the offender through the dating website. She told him that she was a surgeon working with athletes and she had two sons to a notable cricket presenter (also a former cricket captain). She concocted a story about needing surgery but being unable to pay for it because of legal contests to money that she was entitled to from a trust. Mr DJ sent her $1,997.17.
13. In 2008, the offender spun a similar story of deceit to a Mr BC. This is charge 2018/3461. They exchanged text messages over a period of about 10 years. Fortunately, he only paid her $50.
14. Charge 2018/4870 concerns Mr ZS. He also met the offender on the same website. He thought her name was Amelia Lukaa. The offender told Mr ZS that her father had passed away, that she needed to give up her job and studies to take care of her mother and that her father had committed suicide. The money requested was to pay for rent. Mr ZS handed over $400.
15. Charge 2018/4871 concerns Mr BL. They met on the dating website. In December 2017 the offender told Mr BL that she needed $1,500 to obtain a visa because she was a German national. She told him that if he paid the money she would, by way of security, send him a pair of earrings. He paid the money, she kept the earrings.
16. A short time later the offender requested more money to meet assorted debts, all of which were false. Ultimately Mr BL paid the offender $4,760, believing he was helping her to pay for medical expenses.
17. Charge 2018/4872 relates to Mr PC. The offender met this man through the social media application Snapchat. The offender concocted a story that they had met before and she provided a photograph of another person. They communicated via the telephone, text messages and sent each other videos and photographs. She told Mr PC that her brother had recently died of a heroin overdose, that she had undergone surgery on her shoulder and neck and that her father used to physically abuse her. Mr PC, thinking he was dealing with an entirely different person made 38 electronic transfers to the offender totalling $6,616.
18. Charge 2018/4873 relates to Mr TJ. The offender’s name in this case was once again Ms Amelia Lukaa. She was from Italy, her father died of cancer and her mother committed suicide. Her brother also committed suicide due to a drug addiction. She always felt alone and depressed. In addition she said that her uncles and cousins travelled from Italy to “bash” her because of arguments over her parent’s estate. She had been locked out of her bank accounts. Mr TJ made 18 electronic transfers to the offender’s bank account, totalling $13,992. Mr TJ took out a bank loan in respect of $10,000 of this amount.
19. The final charge, 2018/4874, relates to Mr JB. The offender made contact with Mr JB through social media. She told him she had a son who was sick, her parents had recently died, her sister died of a drug overdose and she was having problems with her uncles and cousins over her parent’s estate. Again her bank accounts had been locked. She said she needed help with medical expenses. Mr JB made 86 electronic transfers totalling $47,265.
20. Although there are many common subterfuges and lies through the charges, the seriousness of the individual offences, and the resulting sentences, must be generally dictated by the amount of money that was obtained by the deception.
21. The offender was born in 1991. She has described an unhappy childhood because she did not get on well with her sisters. She has also said she was a victim of a sexual assault and has mental health issues. She also saw a family member being abused. Her parents separated when she was four years old. She spent some time being a primary caregiver for her mother. She is of aboriginal heritage.
22. The offender completed Year 10 and has had intermittent work in childcare. She has a Certificate III qualification in childcare. She has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and depression.
23. No real reason for the offending has been provided. The offender did not have debts to cause her to obtain the money and she has no prior criminal history. Her family continues to support her. She has been assessed as having a medium to low risk of reoffending.
24. There is a psychological assessment by a Dr Clout. Her report details the offender’s mental health history. Major Depression seems to have started when she was about 13 years of age. The offender has suffered from multiple depressive episodes since this time. The report suggests that she also suffers from low self-esteem.
25. She has been in prison since February of this year and is obviously struggling with her situation. This was also evident in court on Friday 17 August 2018. The offender fainted during the Crown’s address and required medical attention. The matter was stood over until today. Medical reports which I examined today (Exhibit 1) reveal the offender had suffered grand mal seizures. There is a history of such seizures although there has apparently not been a diagnosis of epilepsy. I was however informed that there is a family history of epilepsy.
26. She has expressed remorse for her offending and has said that she would like to pay the monies back. She has written a letter of apology. I accept her remorse is genuine.
27. The picture which emerges from the report describes a very unhappy person. Notwithstanding the detail and extent of her offending a natural sympathy for her predicament emerges from her history.
28. This case presents a difficult sentencing exercise. Putting aside the offences where small amounts of money were obtained, the nature of the offences is objectively serious and demands appropriate punishment. The victims were not overtly wealthy persons and they were not apparently motivated by any purpose besides assisting an unwell or needy person. On the other hand the offender has a background in which abuse and mental issues have played a significant part. There are also the physical problems the offender is suffering which will make her time in prison more difficult. I think the best way to factor in these issues is to have a shorter than usual non-parole period.
29. I cannot say why she embarked on her criminal enterprise, perhaps it originally started as an experiment which then cascaded and grew out of hand. There does not seem to be explicit explanation for what she did with the money. I was told there was no extravagant expenditure and the money mostly went to family expenses. It is evident however that there was an excessive amount of consumption of what may be called normal costs. Alternatively her offending may have been some sort of reaction to her circumstances and for which she should receive appropriate counselling and treatment.
30. I need to apply the objects and principles of sentencing as set out in ss 6 and 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and remind myself that s 10 says a person must not be imprisoned except as a last resort. It was conceded that imprisonment was inevitable. No suggestion was made of an Intensive Corrections Order or a suspended sentence.
31. I also need to afford a degree of leniency because of the absence of a criminal record and take into account the pleas of guilty which entitle the offender to a discount in her sentencing. I will apply a discount of 20% for the pleas of guilty.
32. I must also have regard to the Victim Impact Statements which have been read and which illustrate not only the financial hurt that some of the victims have endured. One of the victims has stated:
It has been a very emotional ride, I have had suicidal thoughts, and I have had to have significant counselling to help me get me through.
33. Another victim has said:
As I have also had major operations in the past from sport, it hit a soft spot and I always gave in with providing her with approximately 5 – $10,000. Even if it takes her the rest of her life to pay me back, I would really love some sort of a payment plan set up to reimburse me financially. The emotional distraught this has brought on myself and my family is heartbreaking.
34. The victim of one of the larger frauds stated:
It was horrifying to find out that others had been placed in the same situation as me. I didn’t expect that at all. I felt used. Like a puppet and ATM for her…Everything I could do I did, and to find out she was doing this to other people I was devastated. I was shocked.
35. The offender has been in custody since 12 February 2018. I think the degree of criminality involved and, where relevant, the amount of money stolen, demands a full-time prison sentence.
36. As I have already said the charges involving the larger amounts of money must attract the more severe sentences. There is of course no formula and there must be a degree of concurrency to avoid an overly long head sentence. The sentences I will impose are after the discount of 20% has been applied. In some cases there is a degree of rounding off.
37. The total amount of money fraudulently obtained was $302,482.09. In respect of each charge the amounts were:
Charge 2018/2629: $61,490
Charge 2018/3458: $134,445.92
Charge 2018/3459: $31,466
Charge 2018/3460: $1,997.17
Charge 2018/3461: $50
Charge 2018/4870: $400
Charge 2018/4871: $4,760
Charge 2018/4872: $6,616
Charge 2018/4873: $13,992
Charge 2018/4874: $47,265
38. I make the following orders:
(a)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/2629), the offender is sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2018 and ending on 11 April 2019.
(b)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/3458), the offender is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2018 and ending on 11 August 2019.
(c)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/3459), the offender is sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2019 and ending on 11 November 2019.
(d)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/3460), the offender is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2018 and ending on 11 April 2018.
(e)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/3461), the offender is sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2018 and ending on 25 February 2018.
(f)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/4870), the offender is sentenced to 1 month of imprisonment commencing on 12 February 2018 and ending on 11 March 2018.
(g)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/4871), the offender is sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 August 2019 and ending on 11 October 2019.
(h)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/4872), the offender is sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 August 2019 and ending on 11 January 2020.
(i)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/4873), the offender is sentenced to 7 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 August 2019 and ending on 11 March 2020.
(j)In respect of the offence of obtaining property by deception (CC 2018/4874), the offender is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 August 2019 and ending on 11 August 2020.
(k)The total sentence imposed is 2 years and 6 months commencing on 12 February 2018 and ending on 11 August 2020.
(l)I set a non-parole period of 13 months to expire on 11 March 2019.
(m)I make a reparation order in terms of the 10 Reparation Schedules relied upon by the Crown pursuant to s 19 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
| I certify that the preceding thirty-eight [38] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: |
0
2